NPR says no pro-gun person will come on the show

The only pro-gun rights person that you featured yesterday, you, in fact, labeled as mentally ill.

Diane Rehm :
And just to follow up on our last caller's comments, we have, of course, each and every day, we've been talking about the horrific crime in Connecticut. We have reached out to gun support organizations, to the NRA, and no one -- and to members of Congress who support gun rights, not one has been willing to come forth.

Where the heck are

Gary Kleck
Stephen Halbrook
David Kopel
Eugene Volokh
etc....

There should be no excuse for this. If NPR is telling the truth then shame on us. If NPR is lying then the NRA, JPFO, SAF, etc should all have a website calling NPR out on this while offering a list of people to debate with. NPR is doing a full court press against gun owners right now and there is nobody defending us on the air waves.

Transcript of show
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-18/americans-and-gun-control/transcript

.
.
.
.
.

If you enjoyed reading about "NPR says no pro-gun person will come on the show" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Certaindeaf

December 26, 2012, 12:04 AM

Big Bird targets should sell like hotcakes.

ol' scratch

December 26, 2012, 12:12 AM

That is a repeat of last weeks show. No one was willing to go on before the NRA made their announcement. The way the media is carrying on right now, I am not surprised. Pierce Morgan calling progun guests stupid might have something to do with it. I really have never seen it this bad before.

Schutzen

December 26, 2012, 12:32 AM

Why would anyone want to interview with a so called "reporter/journalist" that calls gun owners Neanderthals, morons, idiots, rednecks, hicks, et al? Until journalists hold themselves to the standards of fairness that their profession espouses, any conversation with them is probably wasted breath.

crossrhodes

December 26, 2012, 12:34 AM

NPR has been banned in our household for the last 5 years. So no impact no effect.

JERRY

December 26, 2012, 12:42 AM

Why would anybody knowing walk into an ambush at a radio show?

TheGloriousTachikoma

December 26, 2012, 12:47 AM

Maybe to have some representation in the public eye? Right now it looks like we're hiding, no-one is speaking up. It makes it look like we're going to take this laying down.

JERRY

December 26, 2012, 12:54 AM

The only recognized voice to support the 2nd amendment without fluff and apology is ted nugent and he cant keep it clean and gets overboard some times.

wacki

December 26, 2012, 01:00 AM

Why would anyone want to interview with a so called "reporter/journalist" that calls gun owners Neanderthals, morons, idiots, rednecks, hicks, et al? Until journalists hold themselves to the standards of fairness that their profession espouses, any conversation with them is probably wasted breath.

I understand that point of view. You get someone that is very talented to say:

"I will be happy to go on the show if it's 1:1 ratio of pro-gun to anti-gunners, I get to use my own recorder to make a recording of the show, etc..."

I believe we are on the right side of the issue. It's much better to have a Kleck or Kopel on the show then have NPR quote Mr. "we have a black man in the white house, pass the ammunition"

Seriously, listen to the shows. It doesn't look good when they can pick their own villains.

Rocketmedic

December 26, 2012, 05:35 AM

People on both sides of the aisle (especially the right side) seem to forget that democracy is a two-way street. Walking away from the debate as a protest simply guarantees that we will be ignored.

JERRY

December 26, 2012, 06:18 AM

First we are not a democracy.

Second, there are two kinds of people who listen to npr, those who wont change their minds and those whom already know the truth. You loose nothing by side stepping npr.

hogshead

December 26, 2012, 06:36 AM

Cast not your pearls to swine.

bainter1212

December 26, 2012, 06:52 AM

FWIW, Neil Conan ("Talk of the Nation") has been and always seems to be, pretty fair and invested in keeping everyone on point on his show. A couple days after the shooting, he had the mayor of New Haven (decidedly anti-gun) on the show, and the esteemed mayor kept referring to magazines as "clips" and kept referring to semi-auto ARs as "full auto". Neil corrected him on these points, the mayor "poo pooed" his correction like it didn't matter, and Neil insisted upon the correction until the mayor relented. Seems like Conan understands the big difference between semi and full auto and didn't want his listeners misled on these points. Just my two cents, my local affiliate doesn't carry the Diane Reim show.
I listen to NPR a lot, they are generally, blessedly free of the shouting talking heads you would generally find on the radio. While I frequently catch bias on the part of show hosts, usually based on sheer ignorance, Neil Conan seems to be an exception. I rarely if ever catch him letting a guest spread misinformation, before that guest is brought up with a round turn, no matter the political persuasion or topic of discussion.
JMHO

FROGO207

December 26, 2012, 07:02 AM

Yesterday my father had a small "debate" with me. He is Pro hunting and owns several firearms. Listens/watches PBS etc. Told me we citizens do not need handguns or assault weapons to hunt with so what is the big deal with just giving them up. Nobody needs to own a machine gun and that the children did not need to be killed with one.:what: I asked who said they did?? He replied the TV, Radio, and TV all reported that. I tried to explain that all my semi-auto 223 rifles (some that he shot himself) were the same ammo and capacity capable but he was adamant that the shooting was carried out with a full auto assault weapon because that was what was reported in more than one media outlet.:banghead: I asked that he check his facts but he stated that he had no need and PBS of all people would not lie.:cuss: BTW he is a retired teacher and purchased a Mini 14 for me once in the past. The media is doing a great job of smearing the lines of what is true and what is "needed".:cuss:

Pilot

December 26, 2012, 07:40 AM

Like in the last election the left has NO problem lieing, and gets away with it due to their domination of the media. Meanwhile every statement we make is fact checked ad nauseum, but the left gets a pass.

Rocketmedic

December 26, 2012, 07:41 AM

And you lose nothing by bringing an intelligent, rational debate to the platform. A bit elitist and out of touch to ignore an audience of voters based on bias. Perhaps this is what perpetuates the stereotype of gun owners as selfish, out of touch fanatics.

Rocketmedic

December 26, 2012, 07:42 AM

Like in the last election the left has NO problem lieing, and gets away with it due to their domination of the media. Meanwhile every statement we make is fact checked ad nauseum, but the left gets a pass.
So go out, make accurate statements and challenge incorrect information.

Ehtereon11B

December 26, 2012, 07:47 AM

This will be interesting to share since my brother is the rarest of breeds: a liberal gun owner who listens to NPR.

I have largely considered NPR to be among the most biased of news organizations that never covers both sides of the argument.

guyfromohio

December 26, 2012, 09:51 AM

NPR? What's that?

Kristensdaddy

December 26, 2012, 09:58 AM

I'm on the board of directors of our local gun club. We actually received an email from NPR asking for a representative of our club to call them and do an interview. We figure we were chosen because our club starts with the letter "A" and is followed by gun club. We probably came up early in a google search. Anyway, we talked about it briefly and all of us agreed that this would only turn out badly for our club as soundbites would be taken out of context and we would look (sound) like fools.

I would guess that many others have the same feeling and declined to be interviewed. Nothing you could say would satisfy a gun-hating liberal and you certainly won't change their mind.

Curator

December 26, 2012, 10:06 AM

Nationalized Progressive Radio--I would only agree to go on the air live. I have had several experiences where what I said (on tape) was carefully edited they then used it out of context or my actual meaning changed by using half of one statement and half on another. I worked with the local NPR on a history series which I mostly wrote only to have them "butcher" it in the editing room and air it without my seeing and approving their "minor" changes. Needless to say, the end product promoted the progressive view rather than the factually correct one. I pulled the plug on it when we were halfway through. What they did with the other half of the series was even worse.

TheGloriousTachikoma

December 26, 2012, 10:11 AM

Funny that this is exactly the same sentiment that 'they' have towards all of 'you'. You want Mr. 'Black man in the white house, praise gawd and pass the ammunition' to be the only pro-gun voice they hear? Maybe you won't change any minds but if you are really that scared of them twisting your words then maybe your arguments aren't that strong to begin with. <_<

BobTheTomato

December 26, 2012, 10:11 AM

I mostly agree about the idea of not walking into an ambush but I need to give mad props to Larry Pratt and gun owners of america. As cool and calm as he was with someone screaming at him and calling him names is exactly what we need on our side.

Pilot

December 26, 2012, 11:04 AM

The major problem I have with NPR is that it's far left, anti-gun bias is supported by my tax dollars. Yes, I have communcated this to my elected reps.

So go out, make accurate statements and challenge incorrect information.

Why do you think I'm not doing that already?

MErl

December 26, 2012, 11:15 AM

the expressed bias and how issues are handled change on a show by show basis. The show you listed is one I've never heard of, not carried here.

http://www.npr.org/programs/#D

Hacker15E

December 26, 2012, 12:17 PM

I think the pro-firearms crowd needs to get out there and mix it up, ESPECIALLY with a biased media.

Nothing is gained by letting one side of the argument hammer their side home over and over with little or no representation from opposing views.

Ole Coot

December 26, 2012, 12:32 PM

Why should anyone? It's a NO WIN situation, kinda like asking a man if he still beats his wife.

P5 Guy

December 26, 2012, 03:47 PM

If you think The Diane Rheem Show is bad take a listen to Terry Gross sometime.

Hacker15E

December 26, 2012, 04:39 PM

If you think The Diane Rheem Show is bad take a listen to Terry Gross sometime.

Her interview with Paul Barrett about his Glock book was actually pretty decent.

Madcap_Magician

December 27, 2012, 12:24 AM

I love NPR, but I admit there are several subjects about which they just come totally unglued. Guns are one of them.

leadcounsel

December 27, 2012, 12:40 AM

I think PRO guns needs to get our rational and fact based information out there, ESPECIALLY to the left wing who listens to NPR.

It's hard for them to attack intelligent facts. Liberals get emotional and sound stupid. But if you get up and talk about the facts of gun control, that we're no safer and in the big picture more vulnerable, etc.

The question that NOBODY on the left wants to address is, "What next?" Let's say they get their wet dreams and get the Assault Weapons and Magazines and close all the loopholes, and murderers get "armor penetrating" hunting rifles and start sniping people. Then what? Or when they get those "easily concealable handguns" and keep killing people. Then what?

hso

December 27, 2012, 01:37 AM

there are two kinds of people who listen to npr, those who wont change their minds and those whom already know the truth.

As an almost daily listener and supporter of my local public radio station I can assure you that there are many NPR listeners across the country that live outside of the major metro areas that are gun owners and are interested in having intelligent articulate RKBA advocates come on these programs and present the facts and statistics showing that advocating for RKBA is a responsible and logical stance. There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

MachIVshooter

December 27, 2012, 01:45 AM

I think PRO guns needs to get our rational and fact based information out there, ESPECIALLY to the left wing who listens to NPR.

It's hard for them to attack intelligent facts. Liberals get emotional and sound stupid. But if you get up and talk about the facts of gun control, that we're no safer and in the big picture more vulnerable, etc.

I agree, but we first have to have those "intelligent facts". Unfortunately, our side has plenty of skewed statistics and fallible rhetoric, too. We have to tone it down, step back and be purely objective. Doing foolish things like reposting the bit that was going around citing baseball bats as racking up a higher death toll than firearms in this country (flat out lie) makes us look like ignorant hicks. It's no better than Brady using 18-20 year olds in "child" statistics or shootings involving 3 or more people being shot at (not even casualties) as "mass shootings".

First step in the right direction is separating guns from violent crime. They claim more guns equals more crime, we claim more guns equals less crime. The truth is more or fewer firearms will have no bearing on violent crime rates one way or the other.

Arguing from a neutral standpoint still favors the pro gun side without coming across as having an agenda. And always have compassion for the victims. As well, though it shouldn't matter, having kids of your own and/or being a victim/survivor of gun violence does lend additional gravitas to your argument.

Fishslayer

December 27, 2012, 01:57 AM

Her interview with Paul Barrett about his Glock book was actually pretty decent.

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

As for NPR, I have no clue what station it is. I tried to listen to Air America during it's thankfully brief run (know the enemy) but it was just unlistenable.

One thing for the left. They do the out of context video/audio sound bites much better than the right. The videos put together of obama by the right generally look like they were cobbled together by third graders.

Rocketmedic

December 27, 2012, 05:31 AM

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

As for NPR, I have no clue what station it is. I tried to listen to Air America during it's thankfully brief run (know the enemy) but it was just unlistenable.

One thing for the left. They do the out of context video/audio sound bites much better than the right. The videos put together of obama by the right generally look like they were cobbled together by third graders.
Particularly racist third-graders at that.

Some argue that we don't live in a democracy, and in a strictly legal sense, they're right. Our media market is a democracy, though, and when one side is absent or only presents a weak argument, the other gets a free pass.

The greatest threat to the RKBA is a composed, anti-gun speaker who can articulate good reasons to control firearms (and do it effectively). Unopposed, opposed by a right-wing extremist or opposed by only a few publicly, that agenda will be far harder to stop.

mister2

December 27, 2012, 10:03 AM

Who did Pogo say the enemy was?

If anyone wants to go out and spar with the NPR, Pierce Morgan or any other show host/anchor, whatever, they better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent.

If you think simple adrenaline is going to make you jump into the discussion and win, the chances of jumping into the spare car and beating Jimmie Johnson (or your favorite NASCAR driver) fair and square would be about the same. These guys have a whole staff that do their research, have years of radio/TV experience, a polished TV production crew that will shine lights into your eyes to distract you (never thought of that, did you?) and have baited their hooks very well to make yet another classic example of what they want to portray as uneducated and irresponsible rabble.

FANTASY: I'd invite them to come to to "my" show, at a neutral park bench, with my own camera crew, my own soundman. They can bring theirs. We both edit and present our versions to our audiences. It would be interesting to note the differences in presentation of the very same conversation.

Am I saying we should lie down and die? Hell no! But at least get someone with the equal abilities to step up and do battle. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Hacker15E

December 27, 2012, 10:17 AM

It's my understanding that Paul Barrett is no friend of ours. Am I wrong?

Didn't really comment on if Barrett was a 'friend of ours' or not -- I just said the interview with Terri Gross was actually a nice piece on firearms and his book that wasn't littered with typical leftist hysteria.

Hacker15E

December 27, 2012, 10:20 AM

As an almost daily listener and supporter of my local public radio station I can assure you that there are many NPR listeners across the country that live outside of the major metro areas that are gun owners and are interested in having intelligent articulate RKBA advocates come on these programs and present the facts and statistics showing that advocating for RKBA is a responsible and logical stance. There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

Completely agree.

I think everyone should consume media that challenges their way of thinking or shows them a different world view, rather than listening to an echo chamber that only reinforces what they all ready believe.

Steel Horse Rider

December 27, 2012, 10:49 AM

I have been a guest for conservative causes on the local "Public" radio station many times in the past. If you are well prepared with undisputable facts, know that they are going to have you outnumbered, and that most likely there will be either a "surprise" guest or issue introduced it can be an informative time for all. Unfortunately, too often the conservative side is represented by someone who believes they can simply present logic and win or shout down the opposition which rarely works on radio. These people are playing to win and there is no sense of honor or fair play in their beings, but that does not mean they should be ignored. However, in defense of some of the people named they have a finite amount of time to commit and frankly I have never even heard of the show mentioned by the OP.

hso

December 27, 2012, 10:58 AM

I think everyone should consume media that challenges their way of thinking or shows them a different world view, rather than listening to an echo chamber that only reinforces what they all ready believe.

We're willful victims of group think as much any other group. Worse, we're supposed to be advocates and most of us sit around swapping empty rhetoric with each other instead of debating RKBA with others that may not share our views exactly. Even here too many simply attack someone with a different opinion instead of taking the opportunity to calmly and logically teach them the factual basis for RKBA. Instead we fail to emotionalism and sound bite rhetoric instead because we simply can't articulate why we think the way we do.

I encourage everyone to hone their debate skills here and go out and engage in reasonable discussions with people who don't share our views perfectly.

Carl N. Brown

December 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

Pro-gunners had "better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent" --- Piers Morgan? "skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate"? I don't watch the show, but I have downloaded a few transcripts, and Piers Morgan does not exhibit skill, intelligence, quick-wit or articulation when he refuses to let Larry Pratt or John Lott finish a sentence and talks down to people like he is still holding cowering talent show contestants at his mercy.

Bubbles

December 27, 2012, 11:28 AM

Nuts. I've been on her show before (back in 2000, live in-studio for an hour) but have moved since then so she won't have my contact info any more. If I'd have known they were looking for someone I would have gone on as a guest.

mister2

December 27, 2012, 10:01 PM

Pro-gunners had "better be as skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate as their opponent" --- Piers Morgan? "skillful, intelligent, quick-thinking and articulate"? I don't watch the show, but I have downloaded a few transcripts, and Piers Morgan does not exhibit skill, intelligence, quick-wit or articulation when he refuses to let Larry Pratt or John Lott finish a sentence and talks down to people like he is still holding cowering talent show contestants at his mercy.

Well-put. Then let me add "bully-proof" to the attributes, as well. Point is, if we are to go into the lion's den, then we better bring enough of whatever attribute we need to slay that lion.

somerandomguy

December 27, 2012, 10:06 PM

I'd take them on. How do I go about accepting the challenge?

barnbwt

December 28, 2012, 12:08 AM

There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

Indeed, it is truly Radio Number Nerd (which is why I listen almost daily; at least to the news summary.*). It is probably the best platform for the "serious debate" we're allegedly having with the anti's since it undeniably has the best interview environment of all MSM sources (i.e. no screaming Piers Morgan, interrupting Rush, or self-righteous O'Reilly). If we really and truly wish to put forth a heartfelt argument based in fact and reason for discussion, NPR is the place it is most likely to be considered by calm, thoughtful people (biased though they may be). If we wish to demonize the opposition as unamerican traitors, and whip up a passionate frenzy in support of our Consitution, Fox or CNN are probably better venues.

* The features they've run this last year have tended to be much more narrowly focused and biased towards liberal issues/agenda than I'd come to expect from a previously quality organization. Like the rest of (all) mass-media, mainstream or otherwise, they show the same disdain for basic knowledge pertaining to firearms (it's not like they don't do research to accurately report on other topics), and reveal their utter ignorance of the subject when scouting for interviews. They probably don't have contact info for any respectable gun people. Just the other day they were interviewing a "former gun enthusiast" who became fed up with the objects after the Sandy Hook shooting. In summary, she had never owned or shot a gun (but had thought about doing it "someday" :rolleyes:) but now knew for a fact that guns were no good, and swore off the items (pre-emptively :scrutiny:).

NPR is staffed with intelligent professionals. At some level, even they had to be embarrassed to bring on an "expert" who they knew was so utterly ignorant and devoid of logic (it's not like she gave any reasons for swearing off guns, just that Sandy Hook made her scared of the only thing that would save her in such a scenario).

It would be nice if a self-defense instructor of good repute (i.e. not a mall ninja or Dale Gribble) got on to talk about the moral obligation to defend ones self and others. This may even help separate the association of guns and the commission of crime (as opposed to defense against it). It seems all too common in today's attitudes for people to accept a state of helplessness--whatever will I do if there is a shooting at the mall, or while I'm jogging? Duh, defend yourself, which would require a gun to do so effectively :rolleyes:.

Just "blows" peoples' minds, that.

TCB

Justin

December 28, 2012, 01:46 AM

The greatest threat to the RKBA is a composed, anti-gun speaker who can articulate good reasons to control firearms (and do it effectively). Unopposed, opposed by a right-wing extremist or opposed by only a few publicly, that agenda will be far harder to stop.

Funny thing there.

I've yet to find one of these. Especially one capable of presenting actual data showing that their proposed bans would work in any way, shape or form.

If strict gun control laws led to less violence, there would be proof of it. Instead, not even the CDC was able to show that gun control worked in a massive meta study commissioned by the Clinton administration.

Rocketmedic

December 28, 2012, 05:31 AM

Funny thing there.

I've yet to find one of these. Especially one capable of presenting actual data showing that their proposed bans would work in any way, shape or form.

If strict gun control laws led to less violence, there would be proof of it. Instead, not even the CDC was able to show that gun control worked in a massive meta study commissioned by the Clinton administration.
I suspect that the same extremism we have on the right that allows our agenda to be defined by our most radical members is mirrored on the left and pushes their most radical to the front.

Justin

December 28, 2012, 10:44 AM

That's tremendously empty rhetoric.

The bottom line is this:

The left wants to institute gun control.

As the people pushing for new gun control that will, undoubtedly create compliance issues and much confusion on the part of tens of millions of peaceful gun owners, the burden of proof is on them to prove that their proposals would actually work.

I have yet to see one single solitary shred of evidence that shows that magazine bans or restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" have ever led to lower rates of violent crime. If these laws are such a good idea, the data for them should be absolutely overwhelming.

JustinJ

December 28, 2012, 10:54 AM

We're willful victims of group think as much any other group. Worse, we're supposed to be advocates and most of us sit around swapping empty rhetoric with each other instead of debating RKBA with others that may not share our views exactly. Even here too many simply attack someone with a different opinion instead of taking the opportunity to calmly and logically teach them the factual basis for RKBA. Instead we fail to emotionalism and sound bite rhetoric instead because we simply can't articulate why we think the way we do.

I encourage everyone to hone their debate skills here and go out and engage in reasonable discussions with people who don't share our views perfectly.

Perfectly said, HSO. The norm seems to be seek information to validate a preconceived notion rather than seek information to form or revise one. The ad hominem attacks against gun control advocates rather than actually addressing them logically is all too common as well. I'm also tired of the "black and white" delusions as though there are only two categories of people regarding gun control. Its all a sign of severe intellectual laziness.

mister2

December 28, 2012, 11:13 AM

...and then there's the view that what we are seeing at this time is "knee-jerk" which by definition is reflexive, and irrational. It would therefore be difficult to see "reason" or "rational arguments" from the rabid extremists.

Think about it, many anti-gunners fear gun owners like they fear the bogeyman. Those who can be rational about it are probably those who have never stood out for us to see and meet. Or, maybe we've actually met them and have come to some resolution. But what to do about irrational fear? Is the solution to have the bogeyman meet FTF or dialog (on radio, in this case) with the terrified anti-gunner? Not saying dialog is unnecessary, because it definitely is, and about time, too. We just need to be aware of what the problem is and how to best solve it.

In theory, and illuminated by the cold light of reason, there are no limits to the Second Amendment.

None.

But, throw in the real-life psychiatric cases, the criminals and the ensuing mayhem and it becomes easy for people with above-mentioned irrational fear to confuse the means for the real problem. I believe that's where we are now. And for as long as people who shouldn't have possesion actually have it, it can only get worse.

But that's preaching to the choir.

2ifbyC

December 28, 2012, 12:11 PM

It’s difficult being “open-minded” about the left’s view on gun control when they are in the midst of putting the final touches on new gun legislation. It’s analogous to the metaphor of two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch; we are not one of the wolves.

A large portion of those in the middle of the 2A rights issue are in the “something has to be done” camp. They can be easily sold on the idea that no one needs an “assault” weapon or large magazine capacities. So when the media spends the major of its coverage on this issue, an additional gun law is born.

The lazy man’s solution has always won in the past. Getting the public to understand inroads for other solutions, e.g., mental health, school security, is far more difficult. In addition to using facts and figures to dispel the left’s attacks on more gun control, we should turn the table and have them explain the facts and figures to support why other alternatives won’t work.

Good luck finding a media outlet that will provide such a forum and equal time.

Eleanor416Rigby

December 28, 2012, 01:18 PM

"There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming."

How do we know how many "analytical sorts" listen to any particular radio programming?

SuperNaut

December 28, 2012, 01:25 PM

Analytical sorts know that no-one listens to radio anymore. NPR is completely irrelevant.

Devonai

December 28, 2012, 02:16 PM

I listen to NPR because it's the only talk radio I can receive in my area. As mentioned, Neil Conan seems to be the only one trying to be objectionable. Recent "debates" have been impossible to listen to, unfortunately, causing me to switch to music before my head explodes. A choice comment about JHPs being "armor piercing" almost caused me to drive off the road.

wacki

December 28, 2012, 02:24 PM

We're willful victims of group think as much any other group. Worse, we're supposed to be advocates and most of us sit around swapping empty rhetoric with each other instead of debating RKBA with others that may not share our views exactly. Even here too many simply attack someone with a different opinion instead of taking the opportunity to calmly and logically teach them the factual basis for RKBA. Instead we fail to emotionalism and sound bite rhetoric instead because we simply can't articulate why we think the way we do.

I encourage everyone to hone their debate skills here and go out and engage in reasonable discussions with people who don't share our views perfectly.
Perfectly said, HSO. The norm seems to be seek information to validate a preconceived notion rather than seek information to form or revise one. The ad hominem attacks against gun control advocates rather than actually addressing them logically is all too common as well. I'm also tired of the "black and white" delusions as though there are only two categories of people regarding gun control. Its all a sign of severe intellectual laziness.

I like these posts. I blame us for our loss of our freedoms more than I blame the antis.

Most of us claim to love and defend freedom but would rather lie down like a battered woman than get in a simple argument with an anti. It disgusts me.

I've lost count of how many anti's I've converted. Yet so here would rather deny the possibility than pick up a David Kopel book or listen to an Intelligence Squared debate and educate themselves.

Besides, who care if you lose.

1) It hones your skills
2) Someone eventually will listen. either the one you are debating or a bystander.

mister2

December 28, 2012, 05:22 PM

Worse, we're supposed to be advocates and most of us sit around swapping empty rhetoric with each other instead of debating RKBA with others that may not share our views exactly.

Actually, everything here is empty rhetoric. And yours is a great point.

I volunteered with various agencies in both VA and AZ, where I now live. I make friends at the range and compete regularly, even if on a social (meaning my scores suck) level. And I invite friends who have not had the opportunity to visit a range. No one I have associated with in this way has ever expressed irrational fear or anti-gun feelings after learning safety, handling and shooting firearms. No matter what size or caliber.

I am a member of, and contribute to, the NRA.

Rather than discuss, I would rather do one or all of the above. See y'all next week!

threefeathers

December 28, 2012, 05:38 PM

It's too bad that neither Bush as President did anything to cut the funding of this slop trap.

highbrow

December 28, 2012, 06:54 PM

What is NPR?

Irrelevent

gossamer

December 28, 2012, 07:54 PM

I heard a gun store owner from Wyoming on NPR last night. Very well-spoken, level headed and intelligent. And NPR treated him respectfully, with objectivity and professionalism. One of the most intelligent and balanced conversation I've heard on the topic in months.

tompt

December 28, 2012, 07:58 PM

I listen to public radio a lot. While not immune to repeating the logical fallacies all media seem to, they get it right more than most.

When the Mayor of Newtown was on Talk of the Nation, he called for a ban on "automatic and semiautomatic weapons". I've heard that a lot over the past few weeks and wasn't surprised that a public official was grouping auto and semi-auto weapons together as if they were the same thing. It's a common scare tactic. What surprised me was the NPR hosts response (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167463375/sandy-hook-massacre-changes-gun-control-debate):
"I think you're misspeaking: automatic weapons are already banned."

Correcting a guest who is calling for gun control reform is rare enough, but calling out a public official who is doing that? The mayor of Newton? On NPR? Yep, NPR.

The NPR show Marketplace covered the LA gun buyback. They interviewed a few people who where there turning in guns. With one exception, the people they interviewed had the same story. They had low-quality guns they didn't want anymore and they were taking the chance to cash in. No, they weren't the only guns they had. No, they didn't think gun buybacks had any meaningful impact on the number of guns on the street.

The same show also covered gun control in Europe. They covered all the stats you normally hear. Few guns, few gun deaths. However, they also talked about Switzerland. Lots of guns, few gun deaths. Here's the message (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/guns-and-dollars/uk-different-kind-gun-control) they left the NPR listeners with:
"Tougher laws cannot prevent every rampage killing. The worst civilian gun massacre in recent years -- in which 69 people died -- happened in Norway, which, next to Britain, has the strictest gun restrictions in Europe."

I hear things on NPR that I believe are wrong, but I see less bias in their reporting and any other news outlet.

Magoo

December 28, 2012, 08:09 PM

Another gun loving NPR fan here.

cyclopsshooter

December 28, 2012, 08:13 PM

Sick of the uneducated poo-pooing NPR

As an almost daily listener and supporter of my local public radio station I can assure you that there are many NPR listeners across the country that live outside of the major metro areas that are gun owners and are interested in having intelligent articulate RKBA advocates come on these programs and present the facts and statistics showing that advocating for RKBA is a responsible and logical stance. There are greater percentage of analytical sorts listening to NPR than probably any other radio programming.

This is spot-on!

And check this out, NPR proves the necesity of a people having the right to bear arms.. http://www.npr.org/2012/12/28/168193827/out-of-desperation-north-korean-women-become-breadwinners

wacki

January 12, 2013, 01:08 PM

I heard a gun store owner from Wyoming on NPR last night. Very well-spoken, level headed and intelligent. And NPR treated him respectfully, with objectivity and professionalism. One of the most intelligent and balanced conversation I've heard on the topic in months.

Which show is this?

Magoo

January 12, 2013, 01:24 PM

David Keene was interviewed yesterday on the "Around the Nation" show.